The Supreme Court just took a case that could drastically limit — or even overrule — Roe v. Wade

[pknopp]

behind every good thing comes pain!

The Supreme Court just took a case that poses a major threat to Roe v. Wade

The case is the biggest threat to abortion rights to arise since Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court.

www.vox.com

These laws on BANS still do NOTHING
to address the complications of govt
intervening in personal relations and internal decisions where due process gets violated before someone is proven
guilty or convicted of anything.

The legal complications still remain in how govt can investigate cases or enforce laws without violating rights in the process of even proving violations.

We need to focus on prevention at the starting point when men and women make the decision to have sex if pregnancy and children are not wanted.

Both partners are equal at that point.

If there is any coercison or abuse to cause unwanted pregnancy or abortion, both partners should be treated as equally responsible. You would have to prove which partner initiated abusive or unwanted nonconsensual actions leading to unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

Otherwise the laws enforced after pregnancy keeps infringing on women before proving who is responsible for abuse, and more coercion into sex is statistically or potentially caused by men than women. While the laws banning abortion affect women disproportionately.

Until this disparity is addressed, laws will be contested that violate due process and disproportionately impose legally on,women based on gender, by the role played in pregnancy.

I have long argued that we need to concentrate on why we have abortions. To side track for a moment........this law would not overturn RvW. All it would do is tweak it. RvW has always stated that a state can intervene at viability. To simplify that ruling the court set up the trimesters. Now in the last 50 years technology has moved that line back some. Any law that passed that banned abortions at viability would be legal. What the law here did was move that line back just a bit further arguing that if the fetus is worthy of protection at 20-21 weeks (where technology has made life outside the womb viable) surely it should be protected at the time just before that. It's a legit argument.

The law still allows abortion up to 15 weeks. I'm pro-life and we will see many who claim to be pro-life (some are, some are not) cheer if the courts uphold the law even though very little is actually gained. There will still be millions of abortions up to 15 weeks.

The answer is to address the reasons why women feel the need to have an abortion in the first place. You mention prevention and I'm 100% for that. Education, easy access to B.C. etc. But I am also for things like a higher minimum wage, access to affordable health care. Access to affordable day care. Many who claim to be pro-life will scream and holler when things like this are presented. They are not pro-life.

 

[playtime]

up the SC to 11.

why?

because the 1st trump appointee - courtesy of turtleboy, & the 3rd one, the handmaid - again, courtesy of moscow mitch - should not have happened.

the SC hasn't always held 9 justices. there have been less than 9, & more than 9.

They justices are chosen and ginsburg decided not to retire while Obama was president. She thought Hillary would win, well she was wrong. Blame her, she wanted the first woman president to chose her replacement.

bullshit. obama had almost a full year left in his term. the blame lies squarely on bitch mcconnell's deliberate stalling.

why is it mcconnell’s fault? he didn’t make the biden rule

ummmm.... CONtext means everything.

In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

"McConnell made up a rule based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year," Biden said in Philadelphia. "That’s ridiculous."

Biden’s 1992 remarks about election year Supreme Court nominations have been overstated. He didn’t say that nominations shouldn’t occur at all during an election year, but he said the process should wait until after Election Day and that the different branches of government should work together.

PolitiFact - In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

 

[struth]

up the SC to 11.

why?

because the 1st trump appointee - courtesy of turtleboy, & the 3rd one, the handmaid - again, courtesy of moscow mitch - should not have happened.

the SC hasn't always held 9 justices. there have been less than 9, & more than 9.

They justices are chosen and ginsburg decided not to retire while Obama was president. She thought Hillary would win, well she was wrong. Blame her, she wanted the first woman president to chose her replacement.

bullshit. obama had almost a full year left in his term. the blame lies squarely on bitch mcconnell's deliberate stalling.

why is it mcconnell’s fault? he didn’t make the biden rule

ummmm.... CONtext means everything.

In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

"McConnell made up a rule based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year," Biden said in Philadelphia. "That’s ridiculous."

Biden’s 1992 remarks about election year Supreme Court nominations have been overstated. He didn’t say that nominations shouldn’t occur at all during an election year, but he said the process should wait until after Election Day and that the different branches of government should work together.

PolitiFact - In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

haha xiden’s a liar

 

[playtime]

up the SC to 11.

why?

because the 1st trump appointee - courtesy of turtleboy, & the 3rd one, the handmaid - again, courtesy of moscow mitch - should not have happened.

the SC hasn't always held 9 justices. there have been less than 9, & more than 9.

They justices are chosen and ginsburg decided not to retire while Obama was president. She thought Hillary would win, well she was wrong. Blame her, she wanted the first woman president to chose her replacement.

bullshit. obama had almost a full year left in his term. the blame lies squarely on bitch mcconnell's deliberate stalling.

why is it mcconnell’s fault? he didn’t make the biden rule

ummmm.... CONtext means everything.

In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

"McConnell made up a rule based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year," Biden said in Philadelphia. "That’s ridiculous."

Biden’s 1992 remarks about election year Supreme Court nominations have been overstated. He didn’t say that nominations shouldn’t occur at all during an election year, but he said the process should wait until after Election Day and that the different branches of government should work together.

PolitiFact - In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

haha xiden’s a liar

lol ... donny wears the gold plated crown in that dept.

 

[struth]

up the SC to 11.

why?

because the 1st trump appointee - courtesy of turtleboy, & the 3rd one, the handmaid - again, courtesy of moscow mitch - should not have happened.

the SC hasn't always held 9 justices. there have been less than 9, & more than 9.

They justices are chosen and ginsburg decided not to retire while Obama was president. She thought Hillary would win, well she was wrong. Blame her, she wanted the first woman president to chose her replacement.

bullshit. obama had almost a full year left in his term. the blame lies squarely on bitch mcconnell's deliberate stalling.

why is it mcconnell’s fault? he didn’t make the biden rule

ummmm.... CONtext means everything.

In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

"McConnell made up a rule based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year," Biden said in Philadelphia. "That’s ridiculous."

Biden’s 1992 remarks about election year Supreme Court nominations have been overstated. He didn’t say that nominations shouldn’t occur at all during an election year, but he said the process should wait until after Election Day and that the different branches of government should work together.

PolitiFact - In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

haha xiden’s a liar

lol ... donny wears the gold plated crown in that dept.

sorry xiden been doing it for 50 years

he created a rule, chucky later reenforced the rule...and mcconnell simply applied the rule

trump has nothing to do with it

 

[playtime]

up the SC to 11.

why?

because the 1st trump appointee - courtesy of turtleboy, & the 3rd one, the handmaid - again, courtesy of moscow mitch - should not have happened.

the SC hasn't always held 9 justices. there have been less than 9, & more than 9.

They justices are chosen and ginsburg decided not to retire while Obama was president. She thought Hillary would win, well she was wrong. Blame her, she wanted the first woman president to chose her replacement.

bullshit. obama had almost a full year left in his term. the blame lies squarely on bitch mcconnell's deliberate stalling.

why is it mcconnell’s fault? he didn’t make the biden rule

ummmm.... CONtext means everything.

In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

"McConnell made up a rule based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year," Biden said in Philadelphia. "That’s ridiculous."

Biden’s 1992 remarks about election year Supreme Court nominations have been overstated. He didn’t say that nominations shouldn’t occur at all during an election year, but he said the process should wait until after Election Day and that the different branches of government should work together.

PolitiFact - In Context: Is there a 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year?

haha xiden’s a liar

lol ... donny wears the gold plated crown in that dept.

sorry xiden been doing it for 50 years

he created a rule, chucky later reenforced the rule...and mcconnell simply applied the rule

trump has nothing to do with it

lol... ' xiden ' LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hadit]

This drive to allow worthless cults to force their opinions on the American population has got to stop. And the people behind this are gun-toting sex nuts whose hatred of women is obvious. The right-wingers will stop at nothing to relieve us of all of our freedoms.

One could say that there is a cult that believes in an invisible lawyer fairy who sprinkles magic dust on a baby once she's born and the mother decides to keep her that turns her from a bunch of cells into a human being.

 

[emilynghiem]

behind every good thing comes pain!

The Supreme Court just took a case that poses a major threat to Roe v. Wade

The case is the biggest threat to abortion rights to arise since Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court.

www.vox.com

These laws on BANS still do NOTHING
to address the complications of govt
intervening in personal relations and internal decisions where due process gets violated before someone is proven
guilty or convicted of anything.

The legal complications still remain in how govt can investigate cases or enforce laws without violating rights in the process of even proving violations.

We need to focus on prevention at the starting point when men and women make the decision to have sex if pregnancy and children are not wanted.

Both partners are equal at that point.

If there is any coercison or abuse to cause unwanted pregnancy or abortion, both partners should be treated as equally responsible. You would have to prove which partner initiated abusive or unwanted nonconsensual actions leading to unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

Otherwise the laws enforced after pregnancy keeps infringing on women before proving who is responsible for abuse, and more coercion into sex is statistically or potentially caused by men than women. While the laws banning abortion affect women disproportionately.

Until this disparity is addressed, laws will be contested that violate due process and disproportionately impose legally on,women based on gender, by the role played in pregnancy.

I have long argued that we need to concentrate on why we have abortions. To side track for a moment........this law would not overturn RvW. All it would do is tweak it. RvW has always stated that a state can intervene at viability. To simplify that ruling the court set up the trimesters. Now in the last 50 years technology has moved that line back some. Any law that passed that banned abortions at viability would be legal. What the law here did was move that line back just a bit further arguing that if the fetus is worthy of protection at 20-21 weeks (where technology has made life outside the womb viable) surely it should be protected at the time just before that. It's a legit argument.

The law still allows abortion up to 15 weeks. I'm pro-life and we will see many who claim to be pro-life (some are, some are not) cheer if the courts uphold the law even though very little is actually gained. There will still be millions of abortions up to 15 weeks.

The answer is to address the reasons why women feel the need to have an abortion in the first place. You mention prevention and I'm 100% for that. Education, easy access to B.C. etc. But I am also for things like a higher minimum wage, access to affordable health care. Access to affordable day care. Many who claim to be pro-life will scream and holler when things like this are presented. They are not pro-life.

They are prolife but they don't want health care hijacked into
an agenda of depending on federal govt.

Feds paying for health care still doesn't address or prevent the abuse of
sexual relations to create unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I am glad you and I agree on more points than we disagree on.

I would not take sides against either prochoice or prolife but
focus on what solutions we support in common. Reinforcing opposition
just discourages hope or faith of working together, so I urge not to dwell on the negatives where we object and disagree.
Of course we have those points on all sides.

What is going to help is to focus on solutions we agree on.

The challenge with preventative outreach is that Govt cannot necessarily support it
since this involves personal decisions and counseling to address. This part is
most effectively done in private in personal relations not regulated by Govt.

So that is why Prolife are so adamant about getting all this business out of Govt
so the proper preventative approaches can be taken. If everything is run through Govt,
both the prochoice complain when prolife oppose their tax dollars and govt favoring prochoice policies,
and the prolife oppose and block any policy that funnels public dollars into programs associated with liberal prochoice agenda.

I have trouble explaining to my fellow liberals and progressives
why we cannot expect to run health care through federal govt, because taxpayers of other beliefs
have a say in where that money goes.

My liberal friends stuck on Statist ideas of Central Authority believe that once
tax money is paid to federal govt, they can vote to use it however the majority rules.

But this still must take into account the BELIEFS of people protected in the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, Tenth Amendment, and Civil Rights.

Health care is best decided locally and democratically, first,
and reserve just the policies that EVERYONE agrees on UNIVERSALLY
and UNIFORMLY to be on the federal level that represents the public without getting
into the personal details and choices which are best managed individually on local levels instead.

by localizing the policies and approaches, then it IS possible to accommodate
the personal decisions, relationships and choices. But federal levels of govt
are not designed to handle such individualized choices and diverse demands.

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

 

[Lysistrata]

This drive to allow worthless cults to force their opinions on the American population has got to stop. And the people behind this are gun-toting sex nuts whose hatred of women is obvious. The right-wingers will stop at nothing to relieve us of all of our freedoms.

One could say that there is a cult that believes in an invisible lawyer fairy who sprinkles magic dust on a baby once she's born and the mother decides to keep her that turns her from a bunch of cells into a human being.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want: faeries, demons, goblins, angels, vampires, "end times," the Easter Bunny, orcs, whatever.

 

[hadit]

This drive to allow worthless cults to force their opinions on the American population has got to stop. And the people behind this are gun-toting sex nuts whose hatred of women is obvious. The right-wingers will stop at nothing to relieve us of all of our freedoms.

One could say that there is a cult that believes in an invisible lawyer fairy who sprinkles magic dust on a baby once she's born and the mother decides to keep her that turns her from a bunch of cells into a human being.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want: faeries, demons, goblins, angels, vampires, "end times," the Easter Bunny, orcs, whatever.

And you are entitled to believe that a baby is not a human being until an invisible lawyer fairy sprinkles magic dust on her. Doesn't make you right, but you can believe it.

 

[hadit]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

 

[hadit]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

 

[hadit]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

I never argued that people will have to pay nothing. I already pay monthly for health care. If that money goes to pay for universal health care all the better. You are paying anyway. It's actually cheaper to get preventative care.

 

[Desperado]

behind every good thing comes pain!

The Supreme Court just took a case that poses a major threat to Roe v. Wade

The case is the biggest threat to abortion rights to arise since Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court.

www.vox.com

Mixed emotions here. Abortion is a very bad thing. but if they outlaw it there will be a lot more blacks in the future.

 

[hadit]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

I never argued that people will have to pay nothing. I already pay monthly for health care. If that money goes to pay for universal health care all the better. You are paying anyway. It's actually cheaper to get preventative care.

Yes, but consider this. "Affordable" is a subjective term, and I'm asking you to define what you mean when you say it. Buzzwords like that are nice emotional fluff, but often evaporate in the harsh light of reality. IOW, are you willing to give up the quality you get so everyone else can have a little more? I think you believe everyone should be able to get the quality you pay for now, but not have to pay what you do for it.

 

[pknopp]

I care less how we run health care. I only care that everyone has access to affordable health care.

"Affordable", but of what quality?

Why does affordable have to be of poor quality?

Because quality costs. There's a reason why the wealthy in countries with socialized medicine come to the States for care. They can skip long lines, avoid rationing and get the best treatment. If everyone in the world could get the same quality of care, we in America would be stunned at how poor quality it was.

Rand Paul went to Canada for treatment. Yes, the rich can get great care here. That is not the society we should strive to be.

That's irrelevant to the truth that quality health care costs a lot, which leads back to my original question, what quality of care do you think is affordable for all? Is it the level America's wealthy can get or the level that the poor in Columbia can get? Here's how to gauge it, look at the per capita spending on healthcare in all these areas and extrapolate that to the entire population and you'll have your answer. Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, sure, but it's not free, never has been free, and never will be free. Someone's going to have to pay for it, and if you take away payment at the time services are rendered, taxes will have to cover the costs. What level of taxation do you think is appropriate to cover healthcare costs for everyone?

I never argued that people will have to pay nothing. I already pay monthly for health care. If that money goes to pay for universal health care all the better. You are paying anyway. It's actually cheaper to get preventative care.

Yes, but consider this. "Affordable" is a subjective term, and I'm asking you to define what you mean when you say it. Buzzwords like that are nice emotional fluff, but often evaporate in the harsh light of reality. IOW, are you willing to give up the quality you get so everyone else can have a little more? I think you believe everyone should be able to get the quality you pay for now, but not have to pay what you do for it.

I have no reason to believe I have to give up anything. Preventive care is cheaper.